SAHM

Yes, this! I did want to be a SAHM and of course I was very grateful he was earning to enable this but the benefits to my partner were huge over this time period and now I’m suffering the consequences and have to live with that, and part of me is angry with him for letting this happen and not encouraging me more to work or take some of the childcare / housework burden. Totally irrational I know as it was my choice but I can’t help how I feel. And yes I’ll probably end up in a crappy part time job of anyone will employ me and pick up all the other pieces of our life at the same time

She probably did want to be a sahm. Lots of people feel this is on the best interests of their dc. And it's a mutual decision - I would never advocate anyone doing this without both parties full agreement.
But a wohp can't reasonably agree to it and spin it as sime kind of favour to the sahp or pretend they obtain zero benefits from it. It's rather nice having the freedom to pursue your work, in the knowledge that your dc are being cared for by the one other person who loves them as much as you do. That sick days and nursery closures and holiday care are all covered, there's no rushing out the door to get to nursery on time before the penalty costs kick in!
I think some wohp are happy to enjoy all that, with little acknowledgment that although the sahp wanted to be with the dc, there are still consequences for them career wise, that cannot always be undone. Yet they will happily see a sahp return to any crappy little job, rather than accept there were consequences to a mutual decision and support the sahp to either continue or take the time to retrain and find a new career. It's like some men resent any time there their partner might have a bit of an easier time, even though we all know that women who work ft still do disproportionately more housework and child care than their ft worker make partners.

I bet she wanted to be a SAHM though, so why make it almost sound like she was forced?

I see nothing wrong with it agreeing to it but only until the children are at school. It doesn’t automatically mean it should be forever.

"Insisted you protect yourself financially if the marriage was to end? He's doing you a favour."

Not really - he's enjoyed the benefit of a sahp during the tough years, and been happy for her to sacrifice some earning potential and career progression. Now the kids are at school and it's a bit easier, it suits him more for her to work.
I'd bet London to a brick that she still does the majority of the parenting and is the one to take time off when the kids are sick and didn't go to school!

I’ve been a SAHM for 18 years. Until 2 years ago I was a full time carer for my now adult son. I do think about returning part time now the younger kids are almost adults but I’m honestly enjoying the freedom too much at the moment!

Protecting her financially would be paying her for her labour and adding to her lost pension, right?

Insisted you protect yourself financially if the marriage was to end? He's doing you a favour.

@ViewFromTheBus I think my dh would have quite enjoyed being a sahd and would have been willing to do it, had I been in a career that I couldn't bear to leave. But tbh, I wanted to be home with my babies.

Even with our set up though, I'd not have tolerated having a partner who was unwilling to change his life in any way, to accommodate our dc. He's always been a fully involved dad, even with ft work, just as mothers who work ft are also fully involved parents.

I will say that logistically and from a reduced stress/easier life pov, sah has been great. And I honestly didn't spend all my time singing wheels on the bus or cleaning and I still managed to see friends, talk to other adults etc. Like most things, it is what you make it, to a large extent.

That’s really interesting as it’s the complete opposite for me. All the mums I know work full time and love it. None wanted to go part time, neither did the dads. All couples could afford to take the hit of losing one or part of one salary.

My mum and my mother in law both said to be they really regret not working and being the SAHP.

That said, all the couple I know work equal hours, earn similar amounts, and all share the daily chores and childcare. I can imagine people might feel differently if they were expected to do everything.

Oh. I know very few mums who went back to their jobs full-time. Most went part-time whilst the men made no changes at all.

The idea of spending 24/7 entertaining small children fills me with dread. Let alone the sole responsibility on running the house.

id rather work and split it. If I won the litter I’d outsource all the home running, work less and still have the children in childcare.
it’s not for me.

my friend on the other hand would love it as she loves all that sort of stuff. People are different, there’s no one size fits all.

I'm a SAHM. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Out of the mothers I know with paid jobs, I would say that about half have said they'd prefer to be SAHMs (if there were no impact on income and on future career). Over half of those would be SAHMs if they felt they could afford to, regardless of future career impact.

Almost all of the rest of the mothers I know would rather work part time than full time, and usually fewer hours then they work at present. They just either can't afford to reduce hours, or more commonly can't afford to without negatively impacting lifestyle to an unwanted extent. A couple can't because of their specific jobs.

None of the SAHMs I currently know would rather get a job.

It's absolutely fine being a SAHM if you enjoy it and you can easily afford it. People just need to get over it really.

But that "taking care of kids" should be a joint responsibility.

Imagine if some of the female dominated professions, like teaching and nursing, took the approach you advocate.

I work full time in a job I love and WFH a lot. I see my school age kids almost as much as a SAHM. Many full time working mums and dads are very ‘present’ if that’s what you are arguing is the important thing for raising happy, healthy, loved kids. Regardless of me despising the idea of being a SAHM, I’d be interested if you could find a single person who knows us who thinks our kids are lacking, even in any tiny way, for me not being a SAHM.

Just to add, I became a sahm when I had my 2nd dc. This was accidental initially (difficult pregnancy).

"Whilst I agree we should not define people by their work, the ‘obvious’ thing is still for a woman to give up work or go part-time after procreating, while the man continues in his Very Important Job."

I disagree with that - even on this thread, the vast majority of women went back to work after maternity leave. I think dual income is the norm.

Back when I was a kid (70s/80s) my mum had periods of working ft and sah. I had one sah grandmother (mostly due to illness) and one who worked ft.

When I had my own child (late 1990s) I was back at work within a couple of months (due to both finances and needing to gain experience in a career where I'd only recently qualified). All of my friends returned to work when they had dc.

As a sahm, I feel I was an outlier.

interesting people don't do the 'obvious' thing

Whilst I agree we should not define people by their work, the ‘obvious’ thing is still for a woman to give up work or go part-time after procreating, while the man continues in his Very Important Job.

'Bluntly, the interesting people of working age will be at work in interesting jobs, not in soft play on Tuesday mornings.'

If you seriously believe this, then you have a very narrow view of life - arguably, interesting people don't do the 'obvious' thing and are secure enough not to define themselves by their work and (finances permitting) instead go with what they value most at specific points in their lives.

What makes a person interesting, isn't their job, it's the level of interest they have in the world around them!

So much of what we do for a living comes down to childhood opportunities, finances, life circumstances - I wouldn't judge a person as interesting or boring, based on decisions made off the back of those factors. One of the most interesting, funny, thoughtful and alive people I have ever known, worked on the railway fixing the track. And some of the most dull, have been those in 'interesting' careers.

I would choose to work every time. I love my job and I’ve worked very hard to get to where I am in my career and I don’t need to have to choose between that and my child. It’s perfectly ok to do both. I applied for (and got) a promotion when DS was 10 days old, not the easiest thing I’ve ever done I must say! I’d go stir crazy being at home all day every day. I’m a better person and a better mum when I get my 8 hours a day at work, having conversations with actual adults and not a toddler, going for a run or to the gym on my lunch, and then picking DS up at 5:30pm and having a nice couple of hours with him before bed. My job is very flexible so I never miss parents events at nursery, can do stay and plays etc and can be there to pick him up immediately if he’s unwell or needs me. I absolutely love weekends with him, love planning days out and activities for us to do, but I also need that balance of my “me time” and my career.

Ah, that old chestnut.

You realise working parents don’t have a monopoly on cruelty and neglect. And staying at home doesn’t necessarily make you a more loving, capable or imaginative parent.

I’d choose work. Kid/s all day long every day are exhausting.

Op. Out of curiousity, reading your posts again; are you a man?

100%. I love my job. I don't do it for the money, which is just as well as the money isn't great.

And some stay home to care for their kids and can’t be arsed, or are cruel, neglectful, lazy, ,they do it so they don’t need to work,what’s your point: there is no test we need to take before conception.

caring for a child isn’t about being with them 24/7.